Finding Disney (http://www.msnbc.com/news/917915.asp) - Newsweek, 6/2/03

QuikQuote: That's a lesson Eisner has learned the hard way. Coming off the heady days of what Eisner dubbed the “Disney decade,” the stock plunged from $44 in mid-2000 to below $14 as the company’s list of ailments grew longer than the lines at its theme parks. Orange Alerts and a lousy economy have kept tourists away from Disney World in droves. ABC fell to fourth place in prime time among 18- to 49-year-old viewers. The Disney Stores are struggling, and may be sold. Most troubling of all, Disney lost its crown as the undisputed leader in animation: it was ex-Mouseketeer Jeffrey Katzenberg—and DreamWorks—who won the first-ever Oscar for best animated movie, “Shrek,” while Disney last year delivered the biggest animated bomb in its history, “Treasure Planet.” Even as Disney looks forward to a hit with the release of “Finding Nemo” this Friday, the elation is tempered by the knowledge that the film’s maker, Pixar Animation Studios, could soon take its profitable animated movies elsewhere.

As always, I strongly recommend that everyone follow the link and read the whole article instead of relying on Darkbeer's carefully-selected quote. As he often seems to do, he has selected the most negative paragraph from an article that heavily balanced the company's problems with optimistic descriptions of what is being done to right its direction.

-Jeff

I don't know that I completely agree JeffG. I read the article myself before seeing Darkbeer's post of it, and I don't think choice was all that inappropriate. This felt to me like a good amount of spin control from Eisner - "See, everything is just fine with me, Iger, and the board. Gold isn't publicly calling for my head on a platter right now." Eisner doesn't do interviews like this without a reason, and the reason

This wasn't in-depth journalism - it was fluff. If it had been decent journalism, they would probably not have blamed the park traffic declines on the twin canards of economy and terrorism. The problems they cite are the ones Disney publicly announces - no critical evaluation of the claims, they are simply accepted at face value. Disney's explanations for why they are facing problems, in most cases, wouldn't pass the smell test for any company - but Disney has an image that they can leverage on, and that is what I see here.

Iger running around the lot in untucked suede shirts? Breaking nan-bread at an Indian restaurant in the Bay Area with Pixar's Steve Jobs (from the sidebar)? While I don't normally expect much from Newsweek (Fortune or Harvard Business Review it ain't), I think this was a pretty poor story even for them.

This piece could just as easily have come from a company newsletter. No, it isn't all love and roses in the story, but nobody would have believed that in the first place. This felt like an attempt to spin public opinion about the company and Eisner, and to that goal, it does seem reasonably effective.

This was not a balanced analysis of the company, its troubles, and plans to improve in the future. It was a regurgitation of the company line. If it had been balanced, there would have been one noticeably missing element - critics. They tried Gold and Jobs for comments, but neither would respond. That's it? There are only two critics out there? Vaunted Newweek couldn't find anyone else out there with credibility?

Ultimately, this was Newsweek (and thusly the Washington Post) allowing themselves to be used (willingly or no) to try and spin an image. Smart on Eisner's part, but not all that honest. Many people will probably buy this at face value and move on. If that happens, Eisner scores points for having done the interviews and putting the message out his way. The distinct lack of countering voices, real investigative journalism (as opposed to rehashed press releases and press office spin control), and critical evaluation of claims on both sides reveals the story for what it is – an attempt to recast Michael Eisner from Micromanager extraordinaire into the humble media mogul.

I just went back and re-read the article. It is basically an interview with Eisner and Iger. It does list the biggest problems that the company has faced in recent years, but the focus is largely on Eisner and Iger and their strategy. I didn't think it really gave any pretense about being a deeper investigative article. I agree that the writer didn't go seeking out critics of the strategy (other than Gold, who declined to comment), but it really seems that would have been a different article. I can certainly see a valid argument being made that such an article would have been more useful than this one.

My original point, though, wasn't really to defend the article itself. Instead, my concern was that Darkbeer selected a quote that didn't reflect the tone or content of the article. The points that Tony made actually reinforce the idea that this wasn't primarily a critical, negative article. The selection of that single, completely out-of-context quote conveys a false impression about the content of the article.

Since the quote selected is the one paragraph of the article that most supports the point-of-view that Darkbeer usually presents in his own posts, it feels like he was trying to twist someone else's words to fit his own viewpoint instead of the one that the author was actually conveying. This isn't the first time I have felt that to be the case with his quote selection and I've seen others periodically use quotes from articles (or other posts) in the same way.

Frankly, I've long had a big problem with this technique of re-posting brief out-of-context quotes from articles without any further commentary or discussion. The quote selection inevitably is going to be more of a reflection of what the person selecting the quote believes is important instead of the point of view of the author of the article. Without context, quotes can very frequently convey a very different meaning. Instead, I believe it is much better to simply post the link to the article, along with maybe a sentence or two giving one's own impression of the article, in one's own words. If someone wants to see what the author has to say, they should read the actual article.

-Jeff

The policy at MousePad is not to post more than about 2 paragraphs from the article. Also, I am not here to post just pro-Disney, nor anti-Disney articles. If you go thru thru my news posts you will see both....

As for the reasons I select certain paragraphs... a good rule is that they stand by themselves (like this one did, a good recap of the recent history).

Another major reason I select certain quotes is that I feel that it will create the best discussion points, and yes, that sometimes means that it is a "negative" quote... Also, I almost always try to post full paragraphs, as to limit the amount of "twisting".

I always give a link to the full article, and I hope that folks do decide to check out the full article if it is something that interests them!!!

Every news/announcement link is always attached to an exact copy in the appropriate category to allow additional posts and discussion.

Now, some folks just want the "positive" posted, but every company (and theme park) has both good and bad news.

Alas, In my Humble Opinion (and just mine, not anyone else here at MousePad and/or MousePlanet) the best paragraph to quote was the "history" quote in this Newsweek article, and it is a major publication that is reporting the information....

Now, do I just report the negative... No!, did I not just post the article clearing Eisner of illegal stock purchases??

Alas, it seems some don't want both sides of the news to be discussed, but just the "Happy News"... well, I won't do that, and I will post both the good and bad, at both Disney parks, but also other theme parks. I have posted bad news related to other parks in the past, and I will post it in the future.

Darkbeer... thanks for doing such a great job of alerting us to interesting articles of all types.

While Darkbeer and I may have clashed before in regard to the types of articles he chooses, I can't fault him on his quotes, which always seem to sum up the article quite well.

Keep up the good work, DB

I read the headline, then click on the thread and read the "Quick Quote" knowing full well I'm not getting the whole story. Then I click on the story to read all of it, knowing full well I'm still not getting the full story;) ; knowing full well what the media is like.

I make up my own mind, and refrain from making judgment unless I can trust the source. Thank you for the concern, Jeff, but I'm capable of handling my own information.

Thank you Darkbeer for your work. You may not quote the best, worst, most possitive, or most negitive parts, but you post the interesting ones. And the way the news is lately, it's more negitive than possitive unfortunatly.

~Bob